From: Sean Andrews <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:36:00 -0500
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 9:03 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:15:53 +0100
>
> PeerJ looks to be a fascinating project as one would expect if
Peter Binfield has anything to do with this but like ELife and other
existing journals it seems to be aimed at the Nature slot or something
just below Nature. The quotation from Peter is rather a giveaway - "It
is far more embarrassing to produce work which no one finds worth
commenting upon - or that no one finds at all."
>
> It is my understanding that the myth that there are papers no one
reads has been exploded but others will correct me.
Just to clarify, that particular quote was something I said, not
Binfield. And my purpose was not to perpetuate the myth you mention -
or to muddy the waters on the issue of specialized research - but
simply to respond to the claim that having an open peer review process
would be embarrassing because people would see your works in progress.
This might be the case, but it should also be embarrassing (or at
least humbling) to find that, even if we expose this process in
public, warts and all, no one notices. My point was not that people
don't read (or download these papers) but that it is better to be
embarrassed by people having downloaded, read, and commented upon them
than it is to be embarrassed by their utter disinterest. The open
peer review process being discussed makes both possible, and
ultimately it may be the fear of both that makes people resistant to
these new innovations.
On the other hand, I suppose your point illustrates that the current
system does alleviate both kinds of embarrassment, at least for people
who get published. The closed peer review process shields us from our
compositional foibles, allowing only the polished, final version to
appear; and the specialization of journals ensures that, though the
audience may be small, it is an audience directly tailored to receive
the message and argument being presented, increasing the chances that
a truly engaged and authoritative audience member will provide you
with legitimating feedback - or even a citation!
thanks,
Sean Andrews
|
